I don't think people could wrap their heads around it, psychologically. Currently, it is more valued to have equal say, across the board, regardless of any technical flaws in an equal-weight voting system vs. a weighted voting system.

Of course, that is in response to suggesting this as a better system. In response to using weighted voting as a punishment, that's tricky. We already employ felony disenfranchisement (denying their vote altogether) which courts have ruled constitutional (though weighting their vote may be more in line with the Constitution than removing it altogether).

I'm not sure I'm on board with that, as I am inherently skeptical of automatic and permanent punishments. "Felony" broaches a wide variety of acts, from stealing $5,000.01 worth of goods to raping a family (and their dog), killing them (and their dog), then having sex with the corpses (and their dog).

Weighted voting systems are very sensible, and I would take it further than just criminals, though how far I'm not entirely sure. While it's a nice idea to give everybody equal say in everything, we already recognise that everybody doesn't have the ability to make decisions on every area by using representative democracy. Votes are great, but it would be good to at least try to make sure people have a reasonable knowledge of the area that they are voting on.

Coming from me, this probably won"t be too big of a shock to anyone. I"m not really supportive of open democracy. The vast majority of people should not be voting. Either because they choose not to get informed about the issues (the going ons in their own lives are more important) or because they completely lack logic and reasoning and support a position on blind emotion.

I"d point to Obamacare as a prime example. Everyone seems to have an opinion of it being great or evil, but just last night, I spoke with my mother about it (CFO of a midsized company, about 300 employees and on a board for an insurance company) about Insurance companies in general. In about 10 minutes, I learned significantly more than what you"ll ever hear from Fox, MSNBC, radio talk shows, and average voters.

Those are the people that should have the voice and the vote for how to identify real issues and how to best fix them. And their voices and votes shouldn"t be watered down to the point of nothingness by ignorance and arrogance.

At 6/28/2013 12:44:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Coming from me, this probably won"t be too big of a shock to anyone. I"m not really supportive of open democracy. The vast majority of people should not be voting. Either because they choose not to get informed about the issues (the going ons in their own lives are more important) or because they completely lack logic and reasoning and support a position on blind emotion.

I"d point to Obamacare as a prime example. Everyone seems to have an opinion of it being great or evil, but just last night, I spoke with my mother about it (CFO of a midsized company, about 300 employees and on a board for an insurance company) about Insurance companies in general. In about 10 minutes, I learned significantly more than what you"ll ever hear from Fox, MSNBC, radio talk shows, and average voters.

Those are the people that should have the voice and the vote for how to identify real issues and how to best fix them. And their voices and votes shouldn"t be watered down to the point of nothingness by ignorance and arrogance.

At the same time, though, your mother probably isn't an expert in, say, oil regulations. So does that mean her vote would only be significant for insurance things?

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 6/28/2013 12:44:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Coming from me, this probably won"t be too big of a shock to anyone. I"m not really supportive of open democracy. The vast majority of people should not be voting. Either because they choose not to get informed about the issues (the going ons in their own lives are more important) or because they completely lack logic and reasoning and support a position on blind emotion.

I"d point to Obamacare as a prime example. Everyone seems to have an opinion of it being great or evil, but just last night, I spoke with my mother about it (CFO of a midsized company, about 300 employees and on a board for an insurance company) about Insurance companies in general. In about 10 minutes, I learned significantly more than what you"ll ever hear from Fox, MSNBC, radio talk shows, and average voters.

Those are the people that should have the voice and the vote for how to identify real issues and how to best fix them. And their voices and votes shouldn"t be watered down to the point of nothingness by ignorance and arrogance.

At the same time, though, your mother probably isn't an expert in, say, oil regulations. So does that mean her vote would only be significant for insurance things?

I perhaps worded that poorly. Completely my mistake. She should not be able to vote because she is an "expert" but because she is willing and able to become an "expert." She is willing and able to study through the actual details and learn from the experts to form an opinion. And she is able to withhold any opinion until she gets to that point. So even if given the opportunity to vote on something that she wasn't yet indepthly (not a word, I know) familiar with, she would most likely pass.

At 6/28/2013 8:37:12 AM, drafterman wrote:"Felony" broaches a wide variety of acts, from stealing $5,000.01 worth of goods to raping a family (and their dog), killing them (and their dog), then having sex with the corpses (and their dog).

You, sir, have some problems.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

At 6/28/2013 12:44:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Coming from me, this probably won"t be too big of a shock to anyone. I"m not really supportive of open democracy. The vast majority of people should not be voting. Either because they choose not to get informed about the issues (the going ons in their own lives are more important) or because they completely lack logic and reasoning and support a position on blind emotion.

I"d point to Obamacare as a prime example. Everyone seems to have an opinion of it being great or evil, but just last night, I spoke with my mother about it (CFO of a midsized company, about 300 employees and on a board for an insurance company) about Insurance companies in general. In about 10 minutes, I learned significantly more than what you"ll ever hear from Fox, MSNBC, radio talk shows, and average voters.

Those are the people that should have the voice and the vote for how to identify real issues and how to best fix them. And their voices and votes shouldn"t be watered down to the point of nothingness by ignorance and arrogance.

At the same time, though, your mother probably isn't an expert in, say, oil regulations. So does that mean her vote would only be significant for insurance things?

I perhaps worded that poorly. Completely my mistake. She should not be able to vote because she is an "expert" but because she is willing and able to become an "expert." She is willing and able to study through the actual details and learn from the experts to form an opinion. And she is able to withhold any opinion until she gets to that point. So even if given the opportunity to vote on something that she wasn't yet indepthly (not a word, I know) familiar with, she would most likely pass.

But how could you possibly assess that? I'm not trying to insult your mother, who I'm sure is a fine woman embodying all that you've described. However, that someone has become an expert in a subject says nothing about their overall critical thinking skills. Nor does it guarantee that, even if those skill are generally sound, they'll avoid irrational emotional voting decisions (gays are icky, therefore there must be something wrong with them!!).

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 6/28/2013 8:37:12 AM, drafterman wrote:I don't think people could wrap their heads around it, psychologically. Currently, it is more valued to have equal say, across the board, regardless of any technical flaws in an equal-weight voting system vs. a weighted voting system.

Of course, that is in response to suggesting this as a better system. In response to using weighted voting as a punishment, that's tricky. We already employ felony disenfranchisement (denying their vote altogether) which courts have ruled constitutional (though weighting their vote may be more in line with the Constitution than removing it altogether).

I'm not sure I'm on board with that, as I am inherently skeptical of automatic and permanent punishments. "Felony" broaches a wide variety of acts, from stealing $5,000.01 worth of goods to raping a family (and their dog), killing them (and their dog), then having sex with the corpses (and their dog).

I am not sure why it should matter, once they are out of prison. Why should a thief who stole $1,000.01 (in MN) get their vote back after release and the murderer (assuming they ever are released) not get their's back? Do they both not pay taxes? Are they both not subject to the laws?

I do think anyone currently in jail/prison at the time the polls open should not be allowed to vote. Do you agree with that?

At 6/28/2013 7:09:09 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:What do you think of weighted voting systems? Do you think it could be useful to give to crminals/ex-criminals?

I don't like it, since who decides whose votes are worth more.Criminals currently in jail should not vote, as they are detained during open polls. However, once released, I do believe they should be able to vote, especially after probation/parole is over. Why shouldn't they?

At 6/28/2013 12:44:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Coming from me, this probably won"t be too big of a shock to anyone. I"m not really supportive of open democracy. The vast majority of people should not be voting. Either because they choose not to get informed about the issues (the going ons in their own lives are more important) or because they completely lack logic and reasoning and support a position on blind emotion.

I"d point to Obamacare as a prime example. Everyone seems to have an opinion of it being great or evil, but just last night, I spoke with my mother about it (CFO of a midsized company, about 300 employees and on a board for an insurance company) about Insurance companies in general. In about 10 minutes, I learned significantly more than what you"ll ever hear from Fox, MSNBC, radio talk shows, and average voters.

Those are the people that should have the voice and the vote for how to identify real issues and how to best fix them. And their voices and votes shouldn"t be watered down to the point of nothingness by ignorance and arrogance.

At the same time, though, your mother probably isn't an expert in, say, oil regulations. So does that mean her vote would only be significant for insurance things?

I perhaps worded that poorly. Completely my mistake. She should not be able to vote because she is an "expert" but because she is willing and able to become an "expert." She is willing and able to study through the actual details and learn from the experts to form an opinion. And she is able to withhold any opinion until she gets to that point. So even if given the opportunity to vote on something that she wasn't yet indepthly (not a word, I know) familiar with, she would most likely pass.

But how could you possibly assess that? I'm not trying to insult your mother, who I'm sure is a fine woman embodying all that you've described. However, that someone has become an expert in a subject says nothing about their overall critical thinking skills. Nor does it guarantee that, even if those skill are generally sound, they'll avoid irrational emotional voting decisions (gays are icky, therefore there must be something wrong with them!!).

You're right that it is not a guarantee that people like that will always be 100% free of emotion, or have perfect logic. However, no system, ever will be 100% perfect, and this way would be significantly better than simply anybody and everybody votes, as the average Joe is far more likely to suffer from that.

At 6/28/2013 12:44:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Coming from me, this probably won"t be too big of a shock to anyone. I"m not really supportive of open democracy. The vast majority of people should not be voting. Either because they choose not to get informed about the issues (the going ons in their own lives are more important) or because they completely lack logic and reasoning and support a position on blind emotion.

I"d point to Obamacare as a prime example. Everyone seems to have an opinion of it being great or evil, but just last night, I spoke with my mother about it (CFO of a midsized company, about 300 employees and on a board for an insurance company) about Insurance companies in general. In about 10 minutes, I learned significantly more than what you"ll ever hear from Fox, MSNBC, radio talk shows, and average voters.

Those are the people that should have the voice and the vote for how to identify real issues and how to best fix them. And their voices and votes shouldn"t be watered down to the point of nothingness by ignorance and arrogance.

At the same time, though, your mother probably isn't an expert in, say, oil regulations. So does that mean her vote would only be significant for insurance things?

I perhaps worded that poorly. Completely my mistake. She should not be able to vote because she is an "expert" but because she is willing and able to become an "expert." She is willing and able to study through the actual details and learn from the experts to form an opinion. And she is able to withhold any opinion until she gets to that point. So even if given the opportunity to vote on something that she wasn't yet indepthly (not a word, I know) familiar with, she would most likely pass.

But how could you possibly assess that? I'm not trying to insult your mother, who I'm sure is a fine woman embodying all that you've described. However, that someone has become an expert in a subject says nothing about their overall critical thinking skills. Nor does it guarantee that, even if those skill are generally sound, they'll avoid irrational emotional voting decisions (gays are icky, therefore there must be something wrong with them!!).

You're right that it is not a guarantee that people like that will always be 100% free of emotion, or have perfect logic. However, no system, ever will be 100% perfect, and this way would be significantly better than simply anybody and everybody votes, as the average Joe is far more likely to suffer from that.

I strongly disagree. I've met doctors who believe in astrology, and other supposed "experts" who believe the most ridiculous things. Look, for example, at economists, who all have degrees yet have totally opposite theories.

I assume you'd want it to be based off of a degree, which has no bearing on someone's critical thinking skills; it only has bearing on their ability to put up with the college system.

If it wouldn't be degree-based, what would it be based on?

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

I don't agree with weighted voting systems. I think really the whole foundation of an open democracy--or republic--is to have all citizens have the same say at the end of the day: 1 full vote.

As for criminals, even felons, if they are out of prison, they should have full voting rights. I personally don't think it's right to disenfranchise a person regardless of the crime, after their prison term or fine are is served or paid. Their punishment is over.

But if the chance remains
to see those better days,
I'd cut the cannons down.
- Vampire Weekend "Giving Up the Gun"

At 6/28/2013 12:44:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Coming from me, this probably won"t be too big of a shock to anyone. I"m not really supportive of open democracy. The vast majority of people should not be voting. Either because they choose not to get informed about the issues (the going ons in their own lives are more important) or because they completely lack logic and reasoning and support a position on blind emotion.

I"d point to Obamacare as a prime example. Everyone seems to have an opinion of it being great or evil, but just last night, I spoke with my mother about it (CFO of a midsized company, about 300 employees and on a board for an insurance company) about Insurance companies in general. In about 10 minutes, I learned significantly more than what you"ll ever hear from Fox, MSNBC, radio talk shows, and average voters.

Those are the people that should have the voice and the vote for how to identify real issues and how to best fix them. And their voices and votes shouldn"t be watered down to the point of nothingness by ignorance and arrogance.

At the same time, though, your mother probably isn't an expert in, say, oil regulations. So does that mean her vote would only be significant for insurance things?

I perhaps worded that poorly. Completely my mistake. She should not be able to vote because she is an "expert" but because she is willing and able to become an "expert." She is willing and able to study through the actual details and learn from the experts to form an opinion. And she is able to withhold any opinion until she gets to that point. So even if given the opportunity to vote on something that she wasn't yet indepthly (not a word, I know) familiar with, she would most likely pass.

But how could you possibly assess that? I'm not trying to insult your mother, who I'm sure is a fine woman embodying all that you've described. However, that someone has become an expert in a subject says nothing about their overall critical thinking skills. Nor does it guarantee that, even if those skill are generally sound, they'll avoid irrational emotional voting decisions (gays are icky, therefore there must be something wrong with them!!).

You're right that it is not a guarantee that people like that will always be 100% free of emotion, or have perfect logic. However, no system, ever will be 100% perfect, and this way would be significantly better than simply anybody and everybody votes, as the average Joe is far more likely to suffer from that.

I strongly disagree. I've met doctors who believe in astrology, and other supposed "experts" who believe the most ridiculous things.

And I've met some pretty attractive dead people. Anecdotal evidence speaks nothing of the overall trends or statistics of something. Saying that you've meet some experts that believe in ridiculous things does not even come close to challenging that they are more logical than average people.

Look, for example, at economists, who all have degrees yet have totally opposite theories.

What's the point with this? Two people, both using logic, can come to two completely different conclusions. They also can argue more civilized than most of our the political pundits.

I assume you'd want it to be based off of a degree, which has no bearing on someone's critical thinking skills; it only has bearing on their ability to put up with the college system.

If it wouldn't be degree-based, what would it be based on?

While I would argue that there is a significant correlation between the two and that it does not really matter which causes which. However, critical thinking is something which can be taught (or at least nurtured through an academic environment). So while a "degree" may not be the indicator, a "certificate" or simply a test (of which one can choose to enroll in a critical thinking class before hand), just like with your driver's license.

At 6/28/2013 3:30:44 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:I don't agree with weighted voting systems. I think really the whole foundation of an open democracy--or republic--is to have all citizens have the same say at the end of the day: 1 full vote.

As for criminals, even felons, if they are out of prison, they should have full voting rights. I personally don't think it's right to disenfranchise a person regardless of the crime, after their prison term or fine are is served or paid. Their punishment is over.

Wwll, if it is part of their punishment, then there punishment isn't over.

At 6/28/2013 12:44:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Coming from me, this probably won"t be too big of a shock to anyone. I"m not really supportive of open democracy. The vast majority of people should not be voting. Either because they choose not to get informed about the issues (the going ons in their own lives are more important) or because they completely lack logic and reasoning and support a position on blind emotion.

I"d point to Obamacare as a prime example. Everyone seems to have an opinion of it being great or evil, but just last night, I spoke with my mother about it (CFO of a midsized company, about 300 employees and on a board for an insurance company) about Insurance companies in general. In about 10 minutes, I learned significantly more than what you"ll ever hear from Fox, MSNBC, radio talk shows, and average voters.

Those are the people that should have the voice and the vote for how to identify real issues and how to best fix them. And their voices and votes shouldn"t be watered down to the point of nothingness by ignorance and arrogance.

At the same time, though, your mother probably isn't an expert in, say, oil regulations. So does that mean her vote would only be significant for insurance things?

I perhaps worded that poorly. Completely my mistake. She should not be able to vote because she is an "expert" but because she is willing and able to become an "expert." She is willing and able to study through the actual details and learn from the experts to form an opinion. And she is able to withhold any opinion until she gets to that point. So even if given the opportunity to vote on something that she wasn't yet indepthly (not a word, I know) familiar with, she would most likely pass.

But how could you possibly assess that? I'm not trying to insult your mother, who I'm sure is a fine woman embodying all that you've described. However, that someone has become an expert in a subject says nothing about their overall critical thinking skills. Nor does it guarantee that, even if those skill are generally sound, they'll avoid irrational emotional voting decisions (gays are icky, therefore there must be something wrong with them!!).

You're right that it is not a guarantee that people like that will always be 100% free of emotion, or have perfect logic. However, no system, ever will be 100% perfect, and this way would be significantly better than simply anybody and everybody votes, as the average Joe is far more likely to suffer from that.

I strongly disagree. I've met doctors who believe in astrology, and other supposed "experts" who believe the most ridiculous things.

And I've met some pretty attractive dead people. Anecdotal evidence speaks nothing of the overall trends or statistics of something. Saying that you've meet some experts that believe in ridiculous things does not even come close to challenging that they are more logical than average people.

Look, for example, at economists, who all have degrees yet have totally opposite theories.

What's the point with this? Two people, both using logic, can come to two completely different conclusions. They also can argue more civilized than most of our the political pundits.

I assume you'd want it to be based off of a degree, which has no bearing on someone's critical thinking skills; it only has bearing on their ability to put up with the college system.

If it wouldn't be degree-based, what would it be based on?

While I would argue that there is a significant correlation between the two and that it does not really matter which causes which. However, critical thinking is something which can be taught (or at least nurtured through an academic environment). So while a "degree" may not be the indicator, a "certificate" or simply a test (of which one can choose to enroll in a critical thinking class before hand), just like with your driver's license.

I could conceptually get behind the idea of a certificate or DL type item, I suppose.

As regards to your proposed "degrees=smarter" hypothesis, you gave no evidence whatsoever, so I would say my anecdotal response was perfectly appropriate. If you've got a study backing up the idea, that's a whole 'nother ball o' wax. But until then, the conversation is basically:"X seems like Y""I'm not sure, I've known X that was Z""Yeah, well, that's anecdotal, so it's invalid"

See how that doesn't really work?

In the end, though, such a concept is fundamentally oppositional to a democracy. You're stripping away people's right of self-determination; don't the people have the right to make a bad choice?

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 6/28/2013 12:44:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Coming from me, this probably won"t be too big of a shock to anyone. I"m not really supportive of open democracy. The vast majority of people should not be voting. Either because they choose not to get informed about the issues (the going ons in their own lives are more important) or because they completely lack logic and reasoning and support a position on blind emotion.

I"d point to Obamacare as a prime example. Everyone seems to have an opinion of it being great or evil, but just last night, I spoke with my mother about it (CFO of a midsized company, about 300 employees and on a board for an insurance company) about Insurance companies in general. In about 10 minutes, I learned significantly more than what you"ll ever hear from Fox, MSNBC, radio talk shows, and average voters.

Those are the people that should have the voice and the vote for how to identify real issues and how to best fix them. And their voices and votes shouldn"t be watered down to the point of nothingness by ignorance and arrogance.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

That being said, this is why we have a republic. The population is supposed to choose the representatives whom they most trust will represent them with their best intentions in mind. These representatives are the ones whom the masses "hire" so to speak to become "experts" in the various fields necessary to make various decisions. I don' know for sure, & correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume that this was the original intention of the founders of the democratic-republic system, and in fact the way it was in the beginning.

The problem is that now every person thinks that they know & understand all of the issues, and end up voting on the issues I.E. the candidate that fits with their "opinions", rather than the candidate themselves for who they are I.E. Integrity, intelligence, responsibility, capability, etc.

However, at the end of the day, the main purpose of democracy IMHO, is accomplished. IMHO, the main purpose of democracy is to prevent individuals who do not have the best interest of the individuals of the country at heart/in mind, from attaining power, or at the very least prevent them from keeping power. And this I believe, has been accomplished. Although some radicals may disagree, most people would agree that most representatives have, for the most part, tried to act in the best interest of their constituents. & that those who did not, did not remain a representative for long. Thus despite all its flaws, seems to be working relatively well.

I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

At 6/28/2013 3:30:44 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:I don't agree with weighted voting systems. I think really the whole foundation of an open democracy--or republic--is to have all citizens have the same say at the end of the day: 1 full vote.

As for criminals, even felons, if they are out of prison, they should have full voting rights. I personally don't think it's right to disenfranchise a person regardless of the crime, after their prison term or fine are is served or paid. Their punishment is over.

Wwll, if it is part of their punishment, then there punishment isn't over.

No lie, I KNEW you were going to say that.

I guess what I'm saying is that it SHOULDN'T be part of anyone's punishment ever.

But if the chance remains
to see those better days,
I'd cut the cannons down.
- Vampire Weekend "Giving Up the Gun"

At 6/28/2013 12:44:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Coming from me, this probably won"t be too big of a shock to anyone. I"m not really supportive of open democracy. The vast majority of people should not be voting. Either because they choose not to get informed about the issues (the going ons in their own lives are more important) or because they completely lack logic and reasoning and support a position on blind emotion.

I"d point to Obamacare as a prime example. Everyone seems to have an opinion of it being great or evil, but just last night, I spoke with my mother about it (CFO of a midsized company, about 300 employees and on a board for an insurance company) about Insurance companies in general. In about 10 minutes, I learned significantly more than what you"ll ever hear from Fox, MSNBC, radio talk shows, and average voters.

Those are the people that should have the voice and the vote for how to identify real issues and how to best fix them. And their voices and votes shouldn"t be watered down to the point of nothingness by ignorance and arrogance.

At the same time, though, your mother probably isn't an expert in, say, oil regulations. So does that mean her vote would only be significant for insurance things?

I perhaps worded that poorly. Completely my mistake. She should not be able to vote because she is an "expert" but because she is willing and able to become an "expert." She is willing and able to study through the actual details and learn from the experts to form an opinion. And she is able to withhold any opinion until she gets to that point. So even if given the opportunity to vote on something that she wasn't yet indepthly (not a word, I know) familiar with, she would most likely pass.

But how could you possibly assess that? I'm not trying to insult your mother, who I'm sure is a fine woman embodying all that you've described. However, that someone has become an expert in a subject says nothing about their overall critical thinking skills. Nor does it guarantee that, even if those skill are generally sound, they'll avoid irrational emotional voting decisions (gays are icky, therefore there must be something wrong with them!!).

You're right that it is not a guarantee that people like that will always be 100% free of emotion, or have perfect logic. However, no system, ever will be 100% perfect, and this way would be significantly better than simply anybody and everybody votes, as the average Joe is far more likely to suffer from that.

I strongly disagree. I've met doctors who believe in astrology, and other supposed "experts" who believe the most ridiculous things.

And I've met some pretty attractive dead people. Anecdotal evidence speaks nothing of the overall trends or statistics of something. Saying that you've meet some experts that believe in ridiculous things does not even come close to challenging that they are more logical than average people.

Look, for example, at economists, who all have degrees yet have totally opposite theories.

What's the point with this? Two people, both using logic, can come to two completely different conclusions. They also can argue more civilized than most of our the political pundits.

I assume you'd want it to be based off of a degree, which has no bearing on someone's critical thinking skills; it only has bearing on their ability to put up with the college system.

If it wouldn't be degree-based, what would it be based on?

While I would argue that there is a significant correlation between the two and that it does not really matter which causes which. However, critical thinking is something which can be taught (or at least nurtured through an academic environment). So while a "degree" may not be the indicator, a "certificate" or simply a test (of which one can choose to enroll in a critical thinking class before hand), just like with your driver's license.

I could conceptually get behind the idea of a certificate or DL type item, I suppose.

As regards to your proposed "degrees=smarter" hypothesis, you gave no evidence whatsoever, so I would say my anecdotal response was perfectly appropriate. If you've got a study backing up the idea, that's a whole 'nother ball o' wax. But until then, the conversation is basically:"X seems like Y""I'm not sure, I've known X that was Z""Yeah, well, that's anecdotal, so it's invalid"

See how that doesn't really work?

The reason was because it is off topic, that's why I said "while I would argue... However..." I don't want to get dragged off on a tangent. What I was saying was that Critical Thinking can be taught. Do you not agree with that?

In the end, though, such a concept is fundamentally oppositional to a democracy. You're stripping away people's right of self-determination; don't the people have the right to make a bad choice?

The reason was because it is off topic, that's why I said "while I would argue... However..." I don't want to get dragged off on a tangent. What I was saying was that Critical Thinking can be taught. Do you not agree with that?

I do. I was more addressing the practical considerations of what you're talking about. But conceptually, like I said, some sort of test or class specifically for that purpose might work.

In the end, though, such a concept is fundamentally oppositional to a democracy. You're stripping away people's right of self-determination; don't the people have the right to make a bad choice?

You're talking with someone that doesn't believe in rights.

Well, I meant rights as within the democratic system. What you're proposing would no longer be democracy. At best, it would be geniocracy, at worse it would be oligarchy. And in the end, if you're abandoning democratic concepts, why not get behind a test to determine the single best critical thinker, who would then rule and make decisions over all?

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 6/28/2013 12:44:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Coming from me, this probably won"t be too big of a shock to anyone. I"m not really supportive of open democracy. The vast majority of people should not be voting. Either because they choose not to get informed about the issues (the going ons in their own lives are more important) or because they completely lack logic and reasoning and support a position on blind emotion.

I"d point to Obamacare as a prime example. Everyone seems to have an opinion of it being great or evil, but just last night, I spoke with my mother about it (CFO of a midsized company, about 300 employees and on a board for an insurance company) about Insurance companies in general. In about 10 minutes, I learned significantly more than what you"ll ever hear from Fox, MSNBC, radio talk shows, and average voters.

Those are the people that should have the voice and the vote for how to identify real issues and how to best fix them. And their voices and votes shouldn"t be watered down to the point of nothingness by ignorance and arrogance.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

He also had some great insults.

That being said, this is why we have a republic. The population is supposed to choose the representatives whom they most trust will represent them with their best intentions in mind. These representatives are the ones whom the masses "hire" so to speak to become "experts" in the various fields necessary to make various decisions. I don' know for sure, & correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume that this was the original intention of the founders of the democratic-republic system, and in fact the way it was in the beginning.

Yes, but if people cannot accurately vote on bills themselves, why would they be able to accurately vote on people to vote on bills? It is important to know that popularity =/= expert in any field.

The problem is that now every person thinks that they know & understand all of the issues, and end up voting on the issues I.E. the candidate that fits with their "opinions", rather than the candidate themselves for who they are I.E. Integrity, intelligence, responsibility, capability, etc.

Agreed, they simply vote for people that will vote how they like, not necessarily who has [qualities you listed]. That means, the politicians are little more than proxy votes now, and by no stretch experts.

However, at the end of the day, the main purpose of democracy IMHO, is accomplished. IMHO, the main purpose of democracy is to prevent individuals who do not have the best interest of the individuals of the country at heart/in mind, from attaining power, or at the very least prevent them from keeping power. And this I believe, has been accomplished.

How does that go with what you previously said? You were previously saying that "the problem is..." that people are voting for proxies, then said you believe that is the purpose of democracy.

Although some radicals may disagree, most people would agree that most representatives have, for the most part, tried to act in the best interest of their constituents. & that those who did not, did not remain a representative for long. Thus despite all its flaws, seems to be working relatively well.

I think it is wrong that when you are leading (or partially leading) a country to be focused on the interests of only your constituents. You should be focused on the interests of the entire country. That is why everyone is so pissed at congress, because each person is only fighting for SOME of the people.

At 6/28/2013 12:44:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Coming from me, this probably won"t be too big of a shock to anyone. I"m not really supportive of open democracy. The vast majority of people should not be voting. Either because they choose not to get informed about the issues (the going ons in their own lives are more important) or because they completely lack logic and reasoning and support a position on blind emotion.

I"d point to Obamacare as a prime example. Everyone seems to have an opinion of it being great or evil, but just last night, I spoke with my mother about it (CFO of a midsized company, about 300 employees and on a board for an insurance company) about Insurance companies in general. In about 10 minutes, I learned significantly more than what you"ll ever hear from Fox, MSNBC, radio talk shows, and average voters.

Those are the people that should have the voice and the vote for how to identify real issues and how to best fix them. And their voices and votes shouldn"t be watered down to the point of nothingness by ignorance and arrogance.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

He also had some great insults.

That being said, this is why we have a republic. The population is supposed to choose the representatives whom they most trust will represent them with their best intentions in mind. These representatives are the ones whom the masses "hire" so to speak to become "experts" in the various fields necessary to make various decisions. I don' know for sure, & correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume that this was the original intention of the founders of the democratic-republic system, and in fact the way it was in the beginning.

Yes, but if people cannot accurately vote on bills themselves, why would they be able to accurately vote on people to vote on bills? It is important to know that popularity =/= expert in any field.

Judging a person is easier than delving into a wide array of complex issues. Particularly when that person has a record of public service that people are aware of. Someone who is perceived to be overly power hungry and concerned with personal ambition at the expense of the masses, will not remain in power. Likewise the masses generally will not vote for their favorite popular celebrity if that individual is not capable of understanding issues & making good decisions. In a democratic system, officials generally have; the intelligence and resources to learn about any issue & make informed decisions, as well as the trust of the people to act in their best interest.

The problem is that now every person thinks that they know & understand all of the issues, and end up voting on the issues I.E. the candidate that fits with their "opinions", rather than the candidate themselves for who they are I.E. Integrity, intelligence, responsibility, capability, etc.

Agreed, they simply vote for people that will vote how they like, not necessarily who has [qualities you listed]. That means, the politicians are little more than proxy votes now, and by no stretch experts.

However, at the end of the day, the main purpose of democracy IMHO, is accomplished. IMHO, the main purpose of democracy is to prevent individuals who do not have the best interest of the individuals of the country at heart/in mind, from attaining power, or at the very least prevent them from keeping power. And this I believe, has been accomplished.

How does that go with what you previously said? You were previously saying that "the problem is..." that people are voting for proxies, then said you believe that is the purpose of democracy.

I'm saying that this problem is merely an imperfection, but not a fatal flaw. Democracy still keeps out the rulers and tyrants that have plagued human history, and still exist in certain parts of the world.

Although some radicals may disagree, most people would agree that most representatives have, for the most part, tried to act in the best interest of their constituents. & that those who did not, did not remain a representative for long. Thus despite all its flaws, seems to be working relatively well.

I think it is wrong that when you are leading (or partially leading) a country to be focused on the interests of only your constituents. You should be focused on the interests of the entire country. That is why everyone is so pissed at the congress, because each person is only fighting for SOME of the people.

This is an interesting point which I have never really considered. I would say that the only one who could be said to be leading a country would be the president. Congress and the senate don't really lead the country, they represent. They discuss issues bringing each of their constituents' interests into the discussion, and are then supposed to compromise and decide based on a majority based system.

I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

The reason was because it is off topic, that's why I said "while I would argue... However..." I don't want to get dragged off on a tangent. What I was saying was that Critical Thinking can be taught. Do you not agree with that?

I do. I was more addressing the practical considerations of what you're talking about. But conceptually, like I said, some sort of test or class specifically for that purpose might work.

In the end, though, such a concept is fundamentally oppositional to a democracy. You're stripping away people's right of self-determination; don't the people have the right to make a bad choice?

You're talking with someone that doesn't believe in rights.

Well, I meant rights as within the democratic system. What you're proposing would no longer be democracy. At best, it would be geniocracy, at worse it would be oligarchy. And in the end, if you're abandoning democratic concepts, why not get behind a test to determine the single best critical thinker, who would then rule and make decisions over all?

Because a single individual is not necessarily better than a small group. The optimum setup is between the two extremes.

The reason was because it is off topic, that's why I said "while I would argue... However..." I don't want to get dragged off on a tangent. What I was saying was that Critical Thinking can be taught. Do you not agree with that?

I do. I was more addressing the practical considerations of what you're talking about. But conceptually, like I said, some sort of test or class specifically for that purpose might work.

In the end, though, such a concept is fundamentally oppositional to a democracy. You're stripping away people's right of self-determination; don't the people have the right to make a bad choice?

You're talking with someone that doesn't believe in rights.

Well, I meant rights as within the democratic system. What you're proposing would no longer be democracy. At best, it would be geniocracy, at worse it would be oligarchy. And in the end, if you're abandoning democratic concepts, why not get behind a test to determine the single best critical thinker, who would then rule and make decisions over all?

Because a single individual is not necessarily better than a small group. The optimum setup is between the two extremes.

It still sort of ignores that you're making everyone else a serf to the "smarties", which seems antithetical to democracy. Which is fine, as far as it goes; like you said, you don't believe in rights, so I'm not arguing against the idea as much as I am pointing out its non-democratic nature.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

The reason was because it is off topic, that's why I said "while I would argue... However..." I don't want to get dragged off on a tangent. What I was saying was that Critical Thinking can be taught. Do you not agree with that?

I do. I was more addressing the practical considerations of what you're talking about. But conceptually, like I said, some sort of test or class specifically for that purpose might work.

In the end, though, such a concept is fundamentally oppositional to a democracy. You're stripping away people's right of self-determination; don't the people have the right to make a bad choice?

You're talking with someone that doesn't believe in rights.

Well, I meant rights as within the democratic system. What you're proposing would no longer be democracy. At best, it would be geniocracy, at worse it would be oligarchy. And in the end, if you're abandoning democratic concepts, why not get behind a test to determine the single best critical thinker, who would then rule and make decisions over all?

Because a single individual is not necessarily better than a small group. The optimum setup is between the two extremes.

It still sort of ignores that you're making everyone else a serf to the "smarties", which seems antithetical to democracy. Which is fine, as far as it goes; like you said, you don't believe in rights, so I'm not arguing against the idea as much as I am pointing out its non-democratic nature.

Oh come on now, it is hardly serfdom. 50% of Americans don't vote and they are not serfs by any stretch. Also, since it would just be a test or class, anyone could potentially vote, just like anyone can potentially drive. No one is barred or banned for life.

At 6/28/2013 12:44:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Coming from me, this probably won"t be too big of a shock to anyone. I"m not really supportive of open democracy. The vast majority of people should not be voting. Either because they choose not to get informed about the issues (the going ons in their own lives are more important) or because they completely lack logic and reasoning and support a position on blind emotion.

I"d point to Obamacare as a prime example. Everyone seems to have an opinion of it being great or evil, but just last night, I spoke with my mother about it (CFO of a midsized company, about 300 employees and on a board for an insurance company) about Insurance companies in general. In about 10 minutes, I learned significantly more than what you"ll ever hear from Fox, MSNBC, radio talk shows, and average voters.

Those are the people that should have the voice and the vote for how to identify real issues and how to best fix them. And their voices and votes shouldn"t be watered down to the point of nothingness by ignorance and arrogance.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

He also had some great insults.

That being said, this is why we have a republic. The population is supposed to choose the representatives whom they most trust will represent them with their best intentions in mind. These representatives are the ones whom the masses "hire" so to speak to become "experts" in the various fields necessary to make various decisions. I don' know for sure, & correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume that this was the original intention of the founders of the democratic-republic system, and in fact the way it was in the beginning.

Yes, but if people cannot accurately vote on bills themselves, why would they be able to accurately vote on people to vote on bills? It is important to know that popularity =/= expert in any field.

Judging a person is easier than delving into a wide array of complex issues. Particularly when that person has a record of public service that people are aware of. Someone who is perceived to be overly power hungry and concerned with personal ambition at the expense of the masses, will not remain in power. Likewise the masses generally will not vote for their favorite popular celebrity if that individual is not capable of understanding issues & making good decisions. In a democratic system, officials generally have; the intelligence and resources to learn about any issue & make informed decisions, as well as the trust of the people to act in their best interest.

The problem is that now every person thinks that they know & understand all of the issues, and end up voting on the issues I.E. the candidate that fits with their "opinions", rather than the candidate themselves for who they are I.E. Integrity, intelligence, responsibility, capability, etc.

Agreed, they simply vote for people that will vote how they like, not necessarily who has [qualities you listed]. That means, the politicians are little more than proxy votes now, and by no stretch experts.

However, at the end of the day, the main purpose of democracy IMHO, is accomplished. IMHO, the main purpose of democracy is to prevent individuals who do not have the best interest of the individuals of the country at heart/in mind, from attaining power, or at the very least prevent them from keeping power. And this I believe, has been accomplished.

How does that go with what you previously said? You were previously saying that "the problem is..." that people are voting for proxies, then said you believe that is the purpose of democracy.

I'm saying that this problem is merely an imperfection, but not a fatal flaw. Democracy still keeps out the rulers and tyrants that have plagued human history, and still exist in certain parts of the world.

I would argue that our actions over the last several decades have been fairly tyrannical. And both parties would agree, though they would only point out what the other party did and not their own.

Although some radicals may disagree, most people would agree that most representatives have, for the most part, tried to act in the best interest of their constituents. & that those who did not, did not remain a representative for long. Thus despite all its flaws, seems to be working relatively well.

I think it is wrong that when you are leading (or partially leading) a country to be focused on the interests of only your constituents. You should be focused on the interests of the entire country. That is why everyone is so pissed at the congress, because each person is only fighting for SOME of the people.

This is an interesting point which I have never really considered. I would say that the only one who could be said to be leading a country would be the president. Congress and the senate don't really lead the country, they represent. They discuss issues bringing each of their constituents' interests into the discussion, and are then supposed to compromise and decide based on a majority based system.

Congress is one of the branches that lead the country, as it is divided into the three branches. No single branch is the lead, that is the importance of the checks and balances.

Oh come on now, it is hardly serfdom. 50% of Americans don't vote and they are not serfs by any stretch.

They made the choice not to vote, they had the ability to do so. Not voting is a choice; not being able to vote is not.

Also, since it would just be a test or class, anyone could potentially vote, just like anyone can potentially drive. No one is barred or banned for life.

You're still holding the group who cannot pass the test responsible for the choices of another group entirely, and it is not their choice. They're responsible for the taxes and laws that they have no representation for.

Driving is a privilege, not a right (although I have issues with that). Voting is a right in a democratic system. I'm not necessarily saying "You're wrong you doodoo head!!11!", you do a fine job defending it as a concept...but I am saying it's very undemocratic.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

Oh come on now, it is hardly serfdom. 50% of Americans don't vote and they are not serfs by any stretch.

They made the choice not to vote, they had the ability to do so. Not voting is a choice; not being able to vote is not.

As already stated, it is no different from driving. If you want to drive, you practice, take a test and drive. If you want to vote, you study, take a test, and vote. In serfdom, the serfs never had the opportunity to vote. To label it is such is an inaccurate label.

Also, since it would just be a test or class, anyone could potentially vote, just like anyone can potentially drive. No one is barred or banned for life.

You're still holding the group who cannot pass the test responsible for the choices of another group entirely, and it is not their choice. They're responsible for the taxes and laws that they have no representation for.

Driving is a privilege, not a right (although I have issues with that). Voting is a right in a democratic system. I'm not necessarily saying "You're wrong you doodoo head!!11!", you do a fine job defending it as a concept...but I am saying it's very undemocratic.

Voting is not a right. Even for those that believe in rights. For one, the SC has already ruled that voting is not a right. Second, allowing everyone to vote is not a requirement for democracy. That is a no true scottsman fallacy. Such a case can be broken down via reduction to absurdity. As every "democracy" has some restrictions, usually age and citizenship. There is a chunk of population that is not allowed to vote, ergo no nation is a democracy under your definition.

Lastly, I don't care what label you give "it". Democracy, flavored democracy, boobooism, or simply it. It is a better system.